The wealthy are responsible enough to manage their money, they don't need your rod, you just want to stick them with it.
It is about not sparing them that burden in order to improve their character, even if it doesn't get them into heaven.
That is the way the socialists sell it. The wealthiest 1% cover all the military expenditures. How much more should they cover if 100% is not enough?
Got to love that government of yours! Make it even bigger, then there will be less corruption right? lol...
From one perspective and in that alternative, war on a for profit basis is not the same as wartime tax rates on the wealthiest. - - - Updated - - - It depends on what you mean by bigger for the general government of the Union. In any case, I am merely advocating for simplifying our social safety nets to lower our tax burden and improve the efficiency of our economy. Why are Capitalists not simply and merely, purchasing the best solutions money can, with an official Mint at their disposal?
The problems is we are stuck working for employers. They oppress workers as a class, if there were alternatives we wouldn't "choose" - be forced by circumstance - to work for capitalists.
You cant start your own collaborative company that has no boss, where the toilet cleaner is equal shareholder along with the CEO?
Not if you have no money to start a business, which minimum wage workers and a lot of other people don't. Even if you scrape together the money to form a cooperative it is disadvantaged in a capitalist market economy.
I was interested in seeing if a "definition" would be provided as there are numerous definitions including one where there are no property rights. But we can go with this one. In this definition the role of government is fundamentally the same as in laizze faire capitalism where the government is mandated with the role of protecting the property rights of the person. Sadly today there are no governments protecting the "property rights" of the person as no government is using species money as the currency for the economy. Fiat currencies violate the Right of Property of the Person but we won't go into that debate. So what is wrong with "socialism" if its exclusively controlled by the people that own the means of production and distribution of the commodities in the economy? Several things that I can think of. First and foremost the "people" won't voluntarily capitalize an enterprise unless they're entited to ownership of the enterprise and that funding cannot be obtained by coercion which would violate the property rights of the individual. In an example I presented in the past the "workers" at Caterpillar Inc. could purchase the corporation from the current owners (stockholders) to "own the means of production" but the cost per employee was about $250,000 based upon the fair market value of the corporation. The employees didn't have enough money to buy the corporation and the corporation couldn't have been taken from the owners (stockholders) by force as that would violate the "owners" property rights. The next problem is that the average person, or worker, is incapable of running a successful enterprise on a large scale. Few people can do this which is why the CEO's of large corporations receive such high compensation. Fundamentally the last person we'd want to run a large enterprise is the worker at the enterprise because they're not qualified. A person can be a great machinist but an incompetent manager of the business. As we know in capitalism most new enterprises fail because of incompetence of the management of the enterprise. Believing the "workers" can run the enterprises is a pipe-dream of the socialist. Socialism addresses the means of production and distribution of commodities but ignores that labor is also a commodity. When the people try to control labor then the economy is doomed to failure or under-performance. Labor has to be based upon supply and demand just like commodities but socialism is not based upon a free flow of labor and commodities based upon supply and demand. What happens, for example, if the demand for new cars drops from 18 million per year to 9 million per years (which happened in 2008 in the US)? The auto industry had twice as many workers than were required to provide the necessary automobiles. The enterprise (the auto industry) couldn't afford to continue to employ people that weren't required for producing the product. What would socialism do with the millions of people that would lose their ownership of the corporation because they were laid off because their labor wasn't necessary to meet demand? The final problem is that an economy is based upon supply and demand. If a "socialistic" economy doesn't meet the demand then "capitalism" will even if it's illegal because a black market will be created to furnish the supply to meet the demand. Anytime there is demand but the supply is limited by the law then capitalism will provide the supply even if it's illegal to do so. Nothing can exemplify this better than the black market in illegal drugs. Captialism will exist in any economy and people will become wealthy because of capitalism. I don't know if this is a perfect example but in the former USSR a person could get a new light bulb if they turned in a burnt out light bulb in exchange. A black market was created to furnish burnt out light bulbs because not everyone had burnt out light bulbs to exchange for new ones. There was a demand for burnt out light bulbs and the black market furnished them. Socialism will always have capitalism even if that capitalism is illegal. It can't be avoided as capitalism provides the supply to meet a demand. Bottom line is that limited socialism can exist legally under capitalism but capitalism will always exist even if it's illegal under socialism. Captialism prevents socialism from working because capitalism cannot be eliminated from any economy.
Currently, only the Individual is subject to liabilities arising from employment at will. This would no longer be an issue if the law applied equally. - - - Updated - - - It is more difficult to enjoin people to follow specific goals without some profit motive.
I submit that Hoover Dam and all other public sector means of production fulfill that criteria since they are owned and operated by We the People.
They can all share the profit of the company equally, theres nothing stopping the socialist types doing that now. They dont need to change the world for the rest of us. But its unlikely to work out well, thats why we dont see many of them.
A few tweaks to the system can change the wealth flow dramatically imo, we dont all have to go all collectivist if dont want. This should allow you more funds to start a collaborative company: 1. Corporate and union money out of politics 2. Positive Money (debt free spent into the real economy) 3. Negative income tax (another poster gave this, i see lots of upside to it) 4. Individual rights and responsibility 5. Sliding scale tax on businesses
No point taxing businesses and corporations I say, only when individuals withdraw profits. Otherwise what can a business do with money other then invest maybe in research that make us better products, or hire more people, or buy more things from other businesses. - - - Updated - - - I have to check out the positive money video again. I had some craziness at the house last week. Let me know what you think about zero business tax. I forgot to add another pro and that is increased foreign investment in the US.
